Arcane debate is animated by what’s at stake: money

SACRAMENTO  “Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” is the second-best line from 1960s-era California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh. His best one — too crude for a family newspaper, but easily found in a Google search — described how lobbyists influence legislators as they pursue “the people’s business.”

This enduring, albeit cynical, truth explains why the most passionate debates in the Capitol often center on money, and why an obscure bill that mandates seemingly modest changes in the definition of public money has brought out the dogs of war. It’s also led to some of the strangest political bedfellows Sacramento has seen in a while.

Senate Bill 594 took aim at the funding sources and activities of nonprofit associations that represent local governments, such as the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. The bill passed out of the Assembly appropriations committee on Friday so neutered that its targets are no longer too concerned about it, but this insider fight says much about Capitol politics.

These nonprofit groups such as the league are funded by dues paid by the governments they represent and also by private funds earned through advertisements and trade shows. The dues are tax dollars and cannot be used to support initiative campaigns. The groups may use those other revenues for political purposes, however. Such private dollars are shielded from disclosure laws.

The bill tried to redefine some of these nonprofits’ private funding sources in a way that deems them “public money” and off-limits from political use. It also called for disclosure of private revenues spent on campaigns and toughened enforcement authority. Originally drafted, the bill would have significantly limited their political spending, which is the Capitol equivalent of fighting words.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which fights tax increases, and the California Professional Firefighters, a public-sector union that often favors them, backed the legislation after having been on the receiving end of campaigns sponsored by these non-profits. Both groups were surprised at their newfound alliance.

“Since 2003, more than $17 million of campaign money has been funneled through ‘non-public funds’ — anonymous accounts run by taxpayer-financed non-profits like the League of California Cities,” according to a firefighters statement. “No FPPC number. No donor reporting. Nothing but cryptic ‘non-public funds.’”

The league’s executive director, Chris McKenzie, told me his group is fastidious about separating private from public funds, that it conducts regular audits, and the Fair Political Practices Commission found no improprieties after an investigation. But SB 594 supporters argue that there’s no way for the public to be sure that there’s no commingling of funds given that the private dollars aren’t disclosed.

“This has been a burr under my saddle for a long time,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Jarvis group. He still complains about the league’s muscular campaign over Proposition 90, the 2006 ballot measure that would have restricted local governments’ ability to use eminent domain to benefit private developers. The firefighters have been annoyed since Proposition 22, the 2010 league-backed initiative that protected redevelopment money at the expense of funds used for firefighting and other services.